Talk:Monotheism

'

Heavy pro-Abrahamic bias
Nearly the entire article is heavily biased toward the aim of glorifying the Abrahamic branch of religions, to the point of nonsensical self-contradiction. Notably, there is a clearly concerted effort to claim Judaism was the first monotheistic religion in history. The dismissal of Zoroastrianism as supposedly not being truly monotheistic due to a dualistic cosmology, but Christianity is also dualistic. Nevertheless, Christianity is explicitly cited by the article as supposedly being monotheistic. The monotheism of Zoroastrianism is further called into question on account of Zoroastrians worshiping "lesser divinities" but this is also found in Christianity, if not also Judaism and Islam. The article needs to be reworked to apply consistent standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:4040:B078:6C00:99A9:7F8A:D244:C8D5 (talk) 03:08, 25 February 2023 (UTC)


 * {u| 2600:4040:B078:6C00:99A9:7F8A:D244:C8D5 }} Zoroastrianism has at least thirty gods, which aren't seen as extensions of the primary monarchic god I'm not sure that counts.. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 16:57, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Judaism didn't started as a monotheistic religion
According to scientists, Judaism started as a Monolatry. And the mention of Judaism not considering Christians as monotheistic is irrelevant: or should we include, that Islam doesn't recognise Judaism and Christianity as monotheistic and that Christianity doesn't recognise Judaism as monotheistic? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.207.62.121 (talk) 17:28, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Scientists don't study history. I'm also very sceptical of the claims about Jewdaism. Them slipping away from the practice into idolotry isn't the same thing. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 16:59, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * "Israel’s god, further, was never the only god, not even in his own book. Jewish scriptures teem with other deities. In situations of war, they contest with YHWH. But they also converse with him. They attend his heavenly court. They bow down to him. They serve as the gods of the nations. Eventually, ancient Jews generated myths domesticating these other superhuman powers as errant angels or as rather dim political subordinates. Those Jews (and, later, gentile Christians) of sufficient (pagan) philosophical education might argue for these powers’ ontological contingency on the One God. In biblical narrative, however, these other divine forces are often simply there."
 * Fredriksen, Paula. “Philo, Herod, Paul, and the Many Gods of Ancient Jewish ‘Monotheism.’” Harvard Theological Review 115, no. 1 (2022): 4-5. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0017816022000049 . TrevorBR (talk) 20:16, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Monotheism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151018000746/http://ir.nmu.org.ua/bitstream/handle/123456789/120570/96db5654f2d3025b46454ace91716506.pdf to http://ir.nmu.org.ua/bitstream/handle/123456789/120570/96db5654f2d3025b46454ace91716506.pdf
 * Added tag to http://www.multifaithcentre.org/sikhism/71-a-short-introduction-to-sikhism-

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:20, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Chinese civilization has never been monotheistic
The section of this article on Monotheism entitled "The Chinese View" is completely misleading and mischaracterizes the whole of Chinese civilization. The one reference the writer referred to in claiming that Chinese culture has had a monotheistic view was from 1959. Since then more accurate cross-cultural studies of the traditional Chinese worldview by Chinese scholars both East and West have made it abundantly clear that China never had anything resembling monotheism - that the claim of Chinese monotheism was made by Western scholars who knew little of the Chinese language, worldview, translation issues, and the like. Thus they took Chinese words out of context and attached them to the closest words in Western languages they thought they referred to, such as the term "Tian" in Chinese, translated as "Heaven" in English. Any sampling of the literature on Chinese studies will verify this. A very short list of books that would put this claim to rest are:

The series by Chinese scholars David Hall and Roger Ames: 1. Thinking Through Confucius (SUNY Series in Systematic Philosophy), 1993; 2. Anticipating China: Thinking through the Narratives of Chinese and Western Culture, 1995; 3. Thinking from the Han: Self, Truth, and Transcendence in Chinese and Western Culture, 1998.

Other Books by Chinese scholars: 1. Ziporyn, Brook: Beyond Oneness and Difference: Li and Coherence in Chinese Buddhist Thought and Its Antecedents (SUNY series in Chinese Philosophy and Culture)Jul 2, 2014; 2. Ziporyn, Brook: Ironies of Oneness and Difference: Coherence in Early Chinese Thought; Prolegomena to the Study of Li (SUNY series in Chinese Philosophy and Culture)Jul 2, 2013; 3. Angle, Sagehood: The Contemporary Significance of Neo-Confucian Philosophy 1st Edition, 2012; 4. Graham, A.C; Disputers of the Tao: Philosophical Argument in Ancient China April, 1989.

I suspect this section of the Wikipedia Monotheism article has made a such an unwarranted claim of Chinese monotheism for global political purposes, to make monotheism appear as some universal cultural standard and thereby raise the credibility of the Western monotheistic view of religion, or it is just plainly out of touch with current cross-cultural scholarship on the nature of the Chinese worldview. Integraldude (talk) 21:27, 19 September 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Integraldude (talk • contribs) 21:22, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * There is no conspiracy it is simply the nature of mythology that it is interpreted in differing ways. This isn't science, you cannot assert as a fact that it is or isn't monotheistic. There are arguments here that it is, there are other arguments in wikipedia Chinese folk religion that it isn't. It's exactly the same with Christianity, some believe it to be monotheistic others don't. Unibond (talk) 11:29, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
 * You absolutely *can* claim that a religion is monotheistic or that it is not, without any subjectivity at all. A monotheistic religion is any religion in which there is exactly one god (with one or more mainfestations). If a religion has more than one god, it is plainly not a monotheistic religion. It doesn't matter if people only worship one god or if they worhship no gods or an infinite many number of gods. The existance of exactly one god is what matters. This is the definition that this article starts with and it leaves no room for interpretation. If any argument exists that more than one god exists, at all, then that settles that a religion is _not_ monotheistic. The only hope to restore the idea that a religion is actually monotheistic means disproving those arguments, not bringing up new arguments to the contrary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.239.195.102 (talk) 05:19, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Monotheist hatnote
The addition of this hatnote has now been reverted twice :

producing:
 * Monotheist" redirects here. For the death metal band, see Monotheist (band). For the album by Celtic Frost, see Monotheist (album).

The edit summary used for removal was "not notable and unlikely to be confused". Both these articles Monotheist (band) and Monotheist (album) are notable. If they are not they should be nominated for deletion. There is likely to be confusion. The template used is Redirect for situations where one article redirects to another. In this case Monotheist redrects to Monotheism. Anyone clicking a link to Monotheist, or searching for monotheist, will end up at this article. They would absolutely be confused if there is no hatnote to the existing Monotheist articles. This is all laid out at WP:HATNOTE, specifically in the very first paragraph:


 * Hatnotes are short notes placed at the very top of an article or a section, like a hat is placed on the very top of a head. (See the note in italics immediately preceding the box above.) Their purpose is to help readers locate a different article if the one they are at is not the one they're looking for. Readers may have arrived at the article containing the hatnote because:


 * * they were redirected,

So as this is an addition well in line with hatnote editing guidelines I'd be interested in any policy based reason not to do it. Tassedethe (talk) 15:53, 8 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I see the band article has already been tagged as not noteable and the album is also of very little substance. It is highly unlikely that anyone would be searching for them let alone be confused by this article. Unibond (talk) 16:18, 9 September 2019 (UTC)


 * The band article has been tagged as possibly not notable, i.e. "may not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for music". If your opinion is it isn't notable then you should nominate it for deletion. "[A]lso of very little substance" is something new to me, it smacks of WP:IDON'TLIKEIT. Either way I note that you still don't provide any links to any policies, guidelines or precedents for your opposition to this change. I will post a note at WP:HATNOTE and see if anyone there can weigh in on this. Tassedethe (talk) 22:01, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Posted at Wikipedia talk:Hatnote. Tassedethe (talk) 22:02, 12 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Situations like this—hatnotes for popular culture topics on top of articles for what most would consider weightier topics—are often resolved by creating a dab page, in this case Monotheist (disambiguation), and having a hatnote that points there.— Shelf Skewed  Talk  22:12, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * is right here: the hatnote is valid all the time those target articles exist. A disambiguation page for 3 entries could be created in theory but a hatnote does the job just as well, because there would have to be hatnote to the disambiguation page anyway. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:45, 13 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes, I should have said: One way or another, a hatnote in some form is required here, and concensus on that is long established. I just meant that I've seen this situation before, in which some editors object to a hatnote pointing to what they consider trivial topics on top of an article of unquestioned importance. A hatnote pointing to a dab page is usually a solution that, if imperfect, is acceptable to all.— Shelf Skewed  Talk  20:14, 13 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the further comments. On the basis that those comments have consensus that a hatnote is correct I will be restoring the hatnote at this article. Tassedethe (talk) 15:12, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Suggestions for editing
After 1 Etymology, I would like to insert the following items.

Regarding established types
In history, the following three species can be distinguished Tokinokawa (talk) 06:28, 27 August 2020 (UTC)Tokinokawa (talk) 06:36, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) Monotheism (single)・・・・I omitted it.Tokinokawa (talk) 06:23, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Moved to the text.Tokinokawa (talk) 22:57, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

"Abrahamic Religions" Section in Wikipedia Article "Monotheism"
It is biased-filled and why the heck you keep it by beginning with "Why the Jews and moslems do not aknowledge Christian Trinity Monotheistic."?

It is biased due because the same "Jewish and Moslem rejection" is being repeated in "Judaism" Section and "Islam" section within this Article.

Call it 'mass-removal of POV-filled sources' but I improved it by making the "Abrahamic Religions" Section free from Apologetics and Missionary-motivated editing. Royalistandlegitimist (talk) 05:50, 11 January 2021 (UTC)


 * What you say seems like WP:RGW/WP:BATTLEGROUND. Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:21, 11 January 2021 (UTC)


 * E.g. the existence of hell isn't acceptable to all Christian denominations. Stating it in the voice of Wikipedia violates WP:RNPOV. Tgeorgescu (talk) 06:38, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Zoroastrian Demographics
(i'm too shy and uninformed to edit myself but) this statement "Gathered statistics shows the number of adherents at as many as 3.5 million" in 'https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monotheism#Zoroastrianism' contradicts this statement "According to a study in 2012 by the Federation of Zoroastrian Associations of North America, the number of Zoroastrians worldwide was estimated to be between 111,691 and 121,962." in 'https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoroastrianism#Demographics'. while the latter source at 'http://fezana.org/downloads/ZoroastrianWorldPopTable_FEZANA_Journal_Fall_2013.pdf' is not exactly a renowned source, at least it seems an honest effort, whereas the source for the former seems to link to a payday website (https://www.adherents.com/payday-loans/#Zoroastrianism), and the poster should probably be ashamed of themselves.


 * Wow - adherents.com domain must have lapsed. You can look up the archived versions of the cite on the wayback machine - the link was very likely added before the site changed. I'm pretty sure adherents.com has been used on several other wp articles. Even then, it was still a slightly questionable source. Still, we should be using the most up-to-date reliable sources we can find. History.com - Zoroastrianism (2019) puts the estimate at around 200,000 adherents, so I'm guessing it's somewhere in-between. --FyzixFighter (talk) 21:26, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Unsourced or unverifiable
You have cited Britannica, but it does not verify your claim, namely that Zoroastrianism was monotheistic. The other reference is not WP:RS. tgeorgescu (talk) 11:36, 13 April 2022 (UTC)


 * If you have time I would like to know how the verification works - or where I can go to read for myself. I can cite other sources pertaining to Zoroastrian influence and its monotheistic nature, but the wiki Page on Zoroastrianism already identifies it as a monotheistic religion. If a Harvard source (for the other edit) is not 'valid' or WP:RS, then I am not sure what would be. If the Christian trinity can be taken as polytheism (and if a source agrees), should editors also prove that it is monotheistic?
 * I am for accuracy, though I am aware that wikipedia cares more about sources. I care about truth, and I see that you claim to as well, so I have no issue you personally. I guess making changes to a wiki page that stay on the page in the near future matters little if people and professional editors can change them any time in the future. Having read the wiki approach I may consider using an outlet that better suits my own concerns and focus less on wiki contributions. Facttruther11 (talk) 18:24, 13 April 2022 (UTC)


 * That's not the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Zoroastrianism says:


 * "It has a dualistic cosmology of good and evil within the framework of a monotheistic ontology and an eschatology which predicts the ultimate conquest of evil by good."


 * Quoted by tgeorgescu (talk) 18:34, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * You know you are wrong because that page says many different things and not all are perfectly in sync. It many times suggests it as a pure monotheism. So it is you who is not giving "nothing but the truth and the whole truth". I disagree with your overall opinion (though I don't know if it's an honest one) and I do not expect a full answer to the rest of my questions. You're overbearingly defending one interpretation among many as though it was inherently true. You ask me to prove that mine is true, but never asked for proof that Judaism or Christianity are monotheistic. If you really cared, you would read the full thing and not just go to one source. Either way, your language right now is so biased that I believe you don't really care about the truth. That is why wikipedia is unscholarly. Facttruther11 (talk) 19:01, 13 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I previously defended here the idea that Trinitarinism is seen as polytheism by Jews and Muslims. Now I seemingly defend the idea that Trinitarianism is monotheistic.
 * Same as "Is Zoroastrianism monotheistic?" such stance cannot be answered by yes or no. It's a maybe, it's a depends, we use WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:33, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I would have appreciated if you brought up POV at the start. You claim its a "maybe" statement, but you defended a "maybe statement" that was presented as a"yes/no" statement: - first, that Judaism is the first monotheistic religion and the one that Zoroastrianism goes only to 600 BC. From what I have seen, you did not address dismiss them as a "maybe", yet other perspectives are easily found and better supported. If we have to be on the fence in every discussion then fine, but that becomes a form of "yes or no" on its own. If wikipedia is about what is "verifiable", then no one should have to provide a "maybe approach" for anything. They gave a source, and for that matter, it was a POV. Wiki pages portray numerous pov's as though they were factual on their own and sometimes they do not perfectly agree. --- Also - I addressed the date as a "maybe" in one of my edits. You deleted it. I do not wish to continue this discussion, yet I actually enjoyed it. If that seems ironic, it's because it's fun to enter debates, even when they are brief. Facttruther11 (talk) 20:07, 13 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I have no problem with citing WP:RS and rendering them accurately, according to WP:RNPOV. Facts is that for the article monotheism you have failed to do that, twice. Suck it up and be a man: it is your failure, not mine. The WP:ONUS is upon the editor who changes the article. You have failed to provide WP:RS for changing it.
 * Zoroaster propagated his message in the 6th century BCE and I fail to understand why you are making the 2nd millennium BCE out of it. Britannica says Zoroastrianism contains both monotheistic and dualistic features. That means that Britannica does not WP:V the claim that Zoroastrianism was the first monotheistic religion. Okay, I see that Britannica gives an alternate dating for Zoroaster c. 1200 BCE or even earlier, but that is relegated to "some/other scholars".
 * And it would be ridiculous to claim that that two-liner amounts to WP:SCHOLARSHIP. It is just a telegram style text posted by we don't know who upon a Harvard website. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:56, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * According to it is unclear whether there was a historical Zoroaster. Well, that's a Harvard course, not a Harvard two-liner. tgeorgescu (talk)  00:20, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * There are at least thirty gods in Zoroastrianism. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 17:01, 14 March 2024 (UTC)